Comcast mulls 250GB monthly bandwidth cap: report

Fri May 9, 2008 11:41AM EDT

See Comments (39)

First came the news that Time Warner is testing bandwidth caps in Texas, and now here's Comcast, apparently considering a cap of its own—a 250GB cap, mind you, compared to Time Warner's stingy 5-to-40GB plans.

According to DSLreports.com, the bandwidth cap proposal has "a lot of momentum" within the Comcast ranks, although nothing's set in stone yet. The info comes from an unnamed Comcast "insider"; the carrier itself has yet to officially comment.

Anyway, the plan calls for a 250GB monthly cap for all Comcast subscribers, with a once-a-year "get out of jail free" card for users who exceed the limit, according to DSLreports. After that, subscribers would pay $10 for every 10GB they use over the limit.

There's nothing fun about bandwidth caps and overage charges, of course, but at least Comcast's proposal is one I could live with. 250GB a month comes out to about 8.3GB a day, equivalent to an HD movie download with a gig or two to spare.

That sounds a lot better than Time Warner Cable's upcoming trial in Beaumont, Texas, that would charge subscribers $1-a-gig extra for exceeding monthly bandwidth caps ranging from 5GB to 40GB, with the 40GB plan potentially costing $50-$60 a month. As I pointed out at the time, renting just eight HD movie downloads (at about 5GB each) would exceed a 40GB monthly cap.

On the other hand, a 250GB bandwidth cap sounds reasonable—and I'd rather have the limit spelled out in black and white, rather than wonder whether my provider is throttling my usage even through I'm on a supposed "all you can eat" plan. It's well worth noting that Comcast has been under fire from the FCC for allegedly interfering with and even disconnecting heavy bandwidth users on its network, even though Comcast currently has no official usage limits.

What do you think—could you live with a 250GB bandwidth cap?

Related:
Comcast Considering 250GB Cap, Overage Fees [DSLreports]

Comments on Comcast mulls 250GB monthly bandwidth cap: report

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 6 Posted by dougmiller55 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:47PM EDT Report Abuse

    Seems like a legitimate thing to do. Regardless of what others may say about a lack of competition, there definitely are alternatives for about 85% of the population (DSL vs Cable). So, if I can't live with a cap, I go to the competitor. Seems fair? No reason to whine about capitalism. Without it, we wouldn't have broadband to begin with! My only question is how I know where I am relative to my cap. On my mobile phone, I can press a code and see how many minutes I've used. Is Comcast going to give me a screen I can go to where it will report what I've used and what I have left? Better yet, would Comcast consider mobile-like plans that have bundles of usage? Since I never download movies or play online games, can I get a cheaper service for a plan with 50GB per month?! Tiers baby! It's all about the tiers. Although mobile is moving to an all-you-can-eat structure, they've had a ton of success with plans that cater to each type of user. I wish my ISP would consider that too!!!

  • 7 Posted by matt_archbold2002 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:11PM EDT Report Abuse

    Im a little hazy on what i would use in a month. I play on xbox live often and rent an HD movie about once a week (not to mention the HD TV shows i buy). What amount of bandwidth does playing matches on Xbox live take? What does the average 3 min. youtube video cost me in bandwidth? What does the average web page cost me in bandwidth each time i use it? I dont get on the internet for 5 hours at a time but i do use it as my HD movie source (live), and i do watch videos on youtube, cnn, break, collegehumor, etc... How much does that take up?

  • 8 Posted by zkbzjm on Thu Sep 3, 2009 11:01PM EDT Report Abuse

    UVERSE IS THE ANSWER!SCREW COMCAST!~

  • 9 Posted by rapmetal47 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:29PM EDT Report Abuse

    I'd hate it. This is really stupid to have to have more charges for stuff. This country in general is going down the tubes.

  • 10 Posted by maori_yelir on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:05PM EDT Report Abuse

    To number 8 Uverse caps your speed at well below what they could offer. They still use a DSL structure on a fiber-optic network. I get faster downloads on Comcast than my friend does with his Uverse deal. The bandwidth is capted at 6 megs while with cable I can get upwards of 10. That said I have 4 computers and 2 video game systems in my house with 3 people who actively use all 6 devices. I regularly download music and movies (Not HD mind you but still a half a gig to a gig in size)and I know atleast one other person does as well. My other roommate is constantly on his Xbox 360 and even when playing an offline game it is still connected to the internet displaying friendslists, ect. While we might still be under 250 gigs of usage (I'm not even remotely sure as to how much we use) what if suddenly we find out that for the last 4 years we have been exceeding this and we are going to have to pay more for the same service? There is a reason that companies stopped using a pay per/hour system, this isn't much different. What about game servers for online games that happen to be on this provider? Are these people suddenly going to get docked with high bills after they went out and purchased expensive server computers either for personal use or to rent out to others to use? This cap just seems to echo the same hysteria AT&T was trying to create by claiming that the internet is going to 'dry up' in 2 years. They are trying to create a reason to charge more because they have been unwilling to update their lines for the last 8 years.

  • 11 Posted by alex_ciam on Fri May 9, 2008 5:21PM EDT Report Abuse

    What you guys whining about??! ... In Australia I'm currently paying $100 per month for a 30Gb download limit. If I go over that 30Gb my speed is throttled to 128k/bps. Also, my downloads and uploads both count towards the 30Gb cap. And you're complaining about 250Gb?!? ... I'd LOVE 250GB. However, I agree that if you signed up for an 'unlimited' plan, you should get unlimited access without any limitations.

  • 12 Posted by sciencetroll@verizon.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:08PM EDT Report Abuse

    i agree with burns355. there are some people who get the service and only use it 1 hour a day and there are the people who are constantly downloading movies so it all evens out.

  • 13 Posted by nolo_8 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:40PM EDT Report Abuse

    Gotta love the choosing from different competitors. If Comcast does this, bye-bye Comcast, Hello other ISP.

  • 14 Posted by sanscvc on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:04PM EDT Report Abuse

    Bandwidth Cap is sounds a good idea for Comcast but no subscriber can appreicate it. For sure the cometitors will be more than happy to increase the subscriber base.

  • 15 Posted by maori_yelir on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:05PM EDT Report Abuse

    To poster 12, there is no download capping that I am aware of in the US. Internet service has been a flat fee system without limits since AOL stopped charging hourly fees. To implement something like this it would be a disgusting display of abuse not just towards customers but towards download-to-rent services like Vudu and Apple TV (Both of which I was looking into buying) so instead people use their pay-per-view on their Comcast TV cable.

  • 16 Posted by agustin2489 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:47PM EDT Report Abuse

    Yes, and no. I'd be willing to do so if I'm left to no other choice or if there's some other worthwhile perk toward the throttling.

  • 17 Posted by mr.darcy77 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:27PM EDT Report Abuse

    250 GB should be plenty, I am on the net all day all the time (I know it's pathetic but that's not the point). I don't even use that much. I guess the cap would affect those people trying to run a business out of their home without paying for the business service.

  • 18 Posted by christinelisamargaux on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:24PM EDT Report Abuse

    Once there are bandwidth caps in place it will be much easier for them to change the amount of bandwidth we are allowed in the future, and as always: profit will dictate our benefits.

  • 20 Posted by somebodys_here on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:32PM EDT Report Abuse

    Hey... 250 isn't bad. Not with the crap speeds that Comcast offers :) Think about it; at full blast my Comcast connection can't get me 8.3 Gigs in a day (I tried, believe me), so this won't be much of an issue to their customers. I can leave my 5 PCs on a split-archive download and have it soon enough that I'm happy. BUT then again, I'm stuck in a legal loophole (I have a wireless hotspot configured for open access- not a network, just WiFi), so I believe they couldn't complain anyways. I'd rather have Verizon FiOS service, but they don't offer it where I live- if they did, I'd drop Comcast faster than they'll euthanize a racehorse with a broken leg (don't hate me, the analogy fits-and no, I don't like it either). Come on Verizon!!! Give me a better option- I'd gladly pay for it ;]

  • 21 Posted by colkraig on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:28PM EDT Report Abuse

    comcast needs to get their billing dept. together.THEY sent my bill 2 days after it was over due.I have to get paper or pay online.Their time is comming faster than they think.

  • 22 Posted by plaga_nerezza on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:14PM EDT Report Abuse

    So let me see if I understand the bases for this plan. They sell you a connection that gets a set amount of data throughput. If you actually use what you paid for you get charged penalties for consuming "to much". This is legal how exactly? These companies need to get checked real quick on this notion. They darn well knew when they sold it they'd run out of bandwidth. Time to either invest again in infrastructure and compression technology or stop selling the speeds. Screwing with people because they use something they pay for is sofukingretodit only comcast and time warner would try it.

  • 23 Posted by tewlman252 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:01PM EDT Report Abuse

    "Last February, Japan launched their Ka-band WINDS (Wideband InterNetworking engineering test and Demonstration Satellite, aka Kizuna) satellite with the hope of using it to provide broadband country-wide at all times, particularly during disasters or Godzilla attack. The Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency is currently conducting successful tests on the satellite, which by July should provide Japanese homes with speeds up to 155Mbps (businesses could see up to 1.2Gbps)." If Japan can do it with out a cap, we can too.

  • 24 Posted by texastop01 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:01PM EDT Report Abuse

    250 Gb a month is a lot.... Time Warners plan is going to be a disaster(see Time Warner / AOL merger ; see mass defections of former AOL customers fleeing to other ISP's),etc....TW is going to screw itself....Comcast has a good idea to set its monthly bandwidth capacity at such a high amount...It'll set off competition among ISP's...which will provide more choice for consumers......

  • 25 Posted by cetus35 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:21PM EDT Report Abuse

    If you appreciate Comcast's generous consideration for a possible 250Gb/month cap, perhaps you could go to the following and give them kudos; I did: http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/Customers/contactus/ContactUs.html Click on option 6 "E-mail Rick", who is the Senior Vice President of Customer Operations at Comcast. I do not work for Comcast, but I do believe in saying thanks to companies who do the customer right and also in saying "thanks for nothing" (in so many words) to companies who worship the $ above the service and consideration given to customers.

More Posts: First Prev 1 2 3 Next Last

Post a Comment

Sign In to Post a Comment

My Tech

Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.

Also on Yahoo! Tech

Computers Home Office Wi-Fi & Networking Phones & PDAs Cameras & Camcorders TV & Home Theater Portable Audio
 

Site Map | Tour | Subscribe to Yahoo! Tech

Question and Answer content at Yahoo! Tech is written by Yahoo! users at Yahoo! Answers. Yahoo! does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. For more information, read the Full Disclaimer.

Opinions expressed by the Advisors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Yahoo! Inc. Yahoo! receives no compensation from any manufacturer or distributor nor does it compensate any Advisor for the coverage of any product or service in any Advisor's content.